DDA Sports Wing Pulled Up for Charging Membership Fees without Granting Access; Told To Pay ₹50,000 in Penalties

Moneylife Digital Team 14 January 2026

Consumer Interest

The Delhi state consumer disputes redressal commission has held the sports wing of the Delhi development authority (DDA) guilty of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice for charging dependent membership fees for a period during which access to the sports facility was not granted. The commission has directed the DDA to refund the excess amount, pay compensation and litigation costs to the complainant, and deposit an additional penalty in the Consumer Welfare Fund.

The ruling came while allowing a first appeal filed by activist-businessman Akash Goel who had challenged the dismissal of his complaint by the district consumer commission in June 2024. Mr Goel, a member of the DDA sports complex, had married on 22 November 2023 and applied five days later to add his wife as a dependent member. DDA, however, did not process the request and asked him to submit a marriage registration certificate.

The record showed that the marriage certificate could be obtained only on 22 December 2023, following which the DDA granted dependent membership to Mr Goel’s wife effective from December 2023. Despite this, when Mr Goel paid membership charges in January 2024 for the period up to March 2025, DDA also charged him dependent membership fees for November 2023, a month in which his wife had neither been granted dependent status nor permitted to use the sports facilities.

Before the state commission, DDA defended the levy by citing its byelaws, arguing that dependent membership charges were to be calculated from the date of marriage, irrespective of when the dependent membership was actually approved. It also contended that Mr Goel had consented to the rules and byelaws at the time of taking membership and that no excess amount had been charged.

The state commission rejected this argument, observing that the authority’s stand was contrary to public policy and basic logic. The bench, comprising justice Sangita Dhingra Sehgal (president) and member Bimla Kumari, noted that it was implausible to charge a consumer for a dependent member when the dependent had not been accorded membership status or access during the relevant period. The commission recorded that the DDA itself had withheld the membership until the marriage certificate was furnished and could not, therefore, demand fees for a period when the service was not provided.

The commission also disagreed with the district commission’s decision to reject the complaint on technical grounds, including the observation that Mr Goel had not challenged the DDA’s byelaws. It held that consumer fora are not writ courts and that a consumer cannot be denied relief merely because internal byelaws are cited to justify an unfair levy.

Setting aside the district commission’s 7 June 2024 order, the state commission directed DDA to refund ₹120 collected for November 2023 along with interest, totalling ₹124, pay ₹15,000 towards litigation costs and pay another ₹15,000 as compensation for mental harassment and loss of time.

In addition, invoking powers under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, the commission ordered the DDA to deposit ₹20,000 in the Consumer Welfare Fund, observing that such wrongful charging practices could potentially affect multiple consumers who may not be conveniently identifiable.

DDA has been directed to comply with the order by 5 March 2026, failing which action may be initiated against it under Section 72 of the Act. The commission has also ordered that the judgment be uploaded on its website for the perusal of the parties and the public.

Comments